Additionally Brooks and Fisher (2014)
20 conducted a review of methodologies for
measuring resilience and identified the following potential dimensions of resilience
21 that can be used to measure livelihood resilience:
• Assets: physical, financial assets; food and seed reserves, etc. (contingency).
• Access to services: water, electricity, early warning systems transport, knowledge and information – to plan for, cope with and recover from stresses and
shocks.
• Adaptive capacity: to anticipate, plan for and respond to longer-term changes –
for example, by modifying current practice, creating new strategies.
• Income and food access: the extent to which people may be poor or food
insecure before the occurrence of a stress or shock.
• Safety nets: includes access to formal and informal support networks, emergency
relief and financial mechanisms such as insurance.
• Livelihood viability: the extent to which livelihoods can be sustained in the face
of shock/stress, or the magnitude of shock/stress that can be accommodated.
• Institutional and governance contexts: the extent to which governance, institutions, policy, conflict and insecurity constrain or enable coping and adaptation.
• Natural and built infrastructural contexts: the extent to which coping and
adaptation are facilitated or constrained by the quality and functioning of built
infrastructure, environmental systems, natural resources and geography.
• Personal circumstances: other factors that make individuals more or less able to
anticipate, plan for, cope with, recover from and adapt to changes
From the descriptions of resilience above, the research team used a participatory
outcome assessment tool to measure the changes anticipated from the adaptation
interventions that could contribute to livelihood resilience in a pastoralist context.
The results from the assessment indicated that early outcomes were already being
realised and included: reduction in livestock disease cases, availability and access
to water in water sources for over longer periods i.e. 3–6 months as opposed to
1–2 months, improved household hygiene and reduction in human waterborne
disease incidences.
To measure outcome/adaptation benefit achievements, the wards used outcome
assessment forms to provide scores on the achievement of any initial outcomes
against outcome indicators. Although attaining resilience is a long term objective,
ward adaptation interventions have been able to provide benefits around increasing
accessibility of water, reduction of violent armed conflicts, and reduction of
livelihood diseases which all play important roles in improving resilience of
communities in the County. See the example of an outcome assessment form in
Table 15.4 from Sericho ward.
As can be seen from the dimensions of resilience described earlier, communities
in Isiolo are already beginning to experience some aspects of enhanced resilience as
20 See note 7.
21 See note 1.
284
I. Karani and N. Kariuki
20 conducted a review of methodologies for
measuring resilience and identified the following potential dimensions of resilience
21 that can be used to measure livelihood resilience:
• Assets: physical, financial assets; food and seed reserves, etc. (contingency).
• Access to services: water, electricity, early warning systems transport, knowledge and information – to plan for, cope with and recover from stresses and
shocks.
• Adaptive capacity: to anticipate, plan for and respond to longer-term changes –
for example, by modifying current practice, creating new strategies.
• Income and food access: the extent to which people may be poor or food
insecure before the occurrence of a stress or shock.
• Safety nets: includes access to formal and informal support networks, emergency
relief and financial mechanisms such as insurance.
• Livelihood viability: the extent to which livelihoods can be sustained in the face
of shock/stress, or the magnitude of shock/stress that can be accommodated.
• Institutional and governance contexts: the extent to which governance, institutions, policy, conflict and insecurity constrain or enable coping and adaptation.
• Natural and built infrastructural contexts: the extent to which coping and
adaptation are facilitated or constrained by the quality and functioning of built
infrastructure, environmental systems, natural resources and geography.
• Personal circumstances: other factors that make individuals more or less able to
anticipate, plan for, cope with, recover from and adapt to changes
From the descriptions of resilience above, the research team used a participatory
outcome assessment tool to measure the changes anticipated from the adaptation
interventions that could contribute to livelihood resilience in a pastoralist context.
The results from the assessment indicated that early outcomes were already being
realised and included: reduction in livestock disease cases, availability and access
to water in water sources for over longer periods i.e. 3–6 months as opposed to
1–2 months, improved household hygiene and reduction in human waterborne
disease incidences.
To measure outcome/adaptation benefit achievements, the wards used outcome
assessment forms to provide scores on the achievement of any initial outcomes
against outcome indicators. Although attaining resilience is a long term objective,
ward adaptation interventions have been able to provide benefits around increasing
accessibility of water, reduction of violent armed conflicts, and reduction of
livelihood diseases which all play important roles in improving resilience of
communities in the County. See the example of an outcome assessment form in
Table 15.4 from Sericho ward.
As can be seen from the dimensions of resilience described earlier, communities
in Isiolo are already beginning to experience some aspects of enhanced resilience as
20 See note 7.
21 See note 1.
284
I. Karani and N. Kariuki